Guests: C. Valentino, M. Russell, P. Tunison, H. M. Newman, Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission (Bolton Point)
Called to Order
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Mr. Proto, Chair.
Additions/Changes to the Agenda
The following items were added to the agenda:
Resolution: Authorization to Increase Hours and Appropriation from Contingent Fund – Health DepartmentBudget Adjustments: Health Department, Social Services, Office for the Aging
Mr. Proto requested that the Health Department items be allowed to be moved up to first on the agenda so that action items could be addressed and free staff who had previous obligations.
Health Department
Introduction of Bio-Terrorism Coordinator
Ms. Cole, Public Health Director, introduced Ted Halpin, who is the new Bio-Terrorism Coordinator for the County. Staff introduced and welcomed Mr. Halpin.
Resolution – Appropriation from Contingent Fund – Terminal Pay
RESOLUTION NO. – APPROPRIATION FROM CONTINGENT FUND – TERMINAL PAY – HEALTH DEPARTMENT
It was MOVED by Ms. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Hattery, and unanimously approved by voice vote of members present, to recommend the following resolution to the full Legislature for approval. RESOLUTION APPROVED.
WHEREAS, the Health Department had an Administrative Assistant
resign effective December 30, 2005, and
WHEREAS, the Fiscal Policy of Tompkins County allows for terminal
pay from the Contingent Fund, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, on recommendation of the Health and Human Services
and Budget and Capital Committees, That the Director of Finance is hereby
authorized and directed to make the following budget appropriation:
FROM: A1990.54440 Contingent Fund $ 457
TO: A4010.51000535 Administrative Assistant $ 329
A4016.58800 Fringes $ 128
SEQR ACTION: TYPE II-20
Resolution No. - Authorization To Increase Hours – WIC Program Director – Health Department
RESOLUTION NO. - AUTHORIZATION TO INCREASE HOURS – WIC PROGRAM DIRECTOR – HEALTH DEPARTMENT
It was MOVED by Mr. Shinagawa, seconded by Ms. Robertson, and unanimously approved by voice vote of members present, to recommend the following resolution to the full Legislature for approval. RESOLUTION APPROVED.
WHEREAS, the WIC Program has sufficient State/Federal funds to
increase the WIC Director's time,
WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Health has authorized
the program to increase the hours, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, on recommendation of the Health and Human Services
and Budget and Capital Committees, That the position of WIC Program Director
(14/598), labor grade N, competitive class, be increased from 35 hours
per week to 40 hours per week effective March 26, 2006,
RESOLVED, further, That this increase in hours shall be permanent
as long as there are sufficient grant funds to cover the increase in hours,
RESOLVED, further, That this change is 100 percent funded by
the WIC Program grant.
SEQR ACTION: TYPE II - 20
Explanation: Funds are available due to changes in staffing since October 1, 2005. Increasing the WIC Director to 40 hours will permit an expansion of clinic hours. The Women Infants and Children (WIC) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has served Tompkins County since 1980 and celebrated its 25th anniversary in 2005. This federal and state funded program strives to improve the nutrition and health status of participants through the provision of nutrition foods, nutrition and health education, breastfeeding support and referrals to community services. In fiscal year 2005 seven nutrition and support staff served an average of 1555 people per month with a total annual food value of $854,000.00.
Resolution No. – Authorization to Increase Hours and Appropriation From Contingent Fund – Health Department
In response to a question regarding proper procedure, Mr. Whicher noted that normally it is preferred to have a Program Committee approve a request such as this resolution prior to the Budget and Capital Committee, however, at times it is desirous to allow the procedure to be reversed if the intent is to bring it to the full Legislature in a more timely basis.
RESOLUTION NO. – AUTHORIZATION TO INCREASE HOURS AND APPROPRIATION FROM CONTINGENT FUND – HEALTH DEPARTMENT
It was MOVED by Ms. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Hattery, and unanimously approved by voice vote of members present, to recommend the following resolution to the full Legislature for approval. RESOLUTION APPROVED.
In response to Ms. Robertson’s request, Ms. Cole will provide a summary of the project at the April 2006 Committee meeting.
WHEREAS, the WIC Program record review is projected to be completed
by April 29, 2006, and
WHEREAS, additional staff hours are required to complete this
review, including the Public Health Director (2.5 hours/week approved by
Resolution No. 255 of 2005), Director of Patient Services, one Community
Health Nurse (20 hours/week) and one Health Aide (7 hours/week),
WHEREAS, funds were not budgeted to complete this record review
and are requested from the contingent fund, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, on recommendation of the Health and Human Services
Committee and Budget and Capital Committees, That the standard workweek
of the Director of Patient Services (88-230), shall be temporarily increased
from 35 hours to 40 hours per week, effective March 26, 2006, and
RESOLVED, further, That the temporary increase in the authorized
workweek will sunset on April 29, 2006,
RESOLVED, further, That the Director of Finance is hereby authorized
and directed to make the following budget appropriation:
FROM: A1990.54440 Contingent Fund $13,673
TO: A4010.51000250 Public Health Director $ 1,257
A4010.58800 Fringes 490
A4016.51000230 Director of Patient Services 2,943
A4016.51000580 Community Health Nurse 4,683
A4016.51000654 Health Aide 954
A4016.58800 Fringes 3,346
SEQR ACTION: TYPE II-20
Budget Adjustment
It was MOVED by Ms. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Shinagawa, and unanimously approved by voice vote of members present, to approve the following budget adjustment. BUDGET ADJUSTMENT APPROVED.
WIC-4012
Revenue Acct
Title
Amt Approp Acct Title(s)
4012.44402 WIC Federal Aid $12,850
4012.54400 Program Expense
4012.44402 WIC Federal Aid $
400 4012.54330 Printing
4012.44402 WIC Federal Aid $
258 4012.54412 Travel/Training
Explanation: Materials for the Health Lifestyle FitWIC Program
through the WIC Program. Printing for handouts/surveys for FitWIC
Program. Training for FitWIC Program. Funds were made available
from New York State Department of Health to promote the Healthy Lifestyle
FitWIC Program.
Public Water Supply Fee – Discussion
Mr. Proto indicated he would like Mr. Andersson from the County’s Environmental Health Division, to provide a history of the water supply fees prior to the discussion. In addition, he indicated written information provided by the Southern Cayuga Intermunicipal Water Commission [commonly referred to as Bolton Point] was given to Committee members and key County personnel, as well as information from the Health Department on the water system fee that was provided approximately two years ago. Mr. Proto explained a major resolution is passed each year by the Legislature incorporating all fees throughout the County’s Divisions/Departments as part of the budget process. He said the discussion is about the increase for public water supply fees that has caused the Southern Cayuga Intermunicipal Water Commission to question the increase’s validity and fairness.
Mr. Andersson provided historical information relating to the development and implementation of the water system fee schedule. He said that for the past ten to fifteen years the fees were generated by looking at the previous year’s expenses, review the programs to determine individual’s costs and determine which programs may require an increase in fees. Each summer the Board of Health receives the compilation of this review that indicates the current year fees, suggested fees, a listing of all programs that allow for fees, and spreadsheets for all fees. In addition, the spreadsheet expenses include all costs associated with the programs (staff, laboratory, supplies, vehicles, etc.). He explained that there are approximately thirty programs, some of which fees are associated with; and others that do not have a fee due to either State regulations disallowing a fee such as not-for-profit children’s camps, or those that are County programs. Mr. Andersson said some program fees are set by the State, regardless of expenses.
He next reviewed the 2004 spreadsheet dealing with water supplies. The spreadsheet was broken out by the size of the system. He said the cost for the community water supply program was $280,000; due to a substantial grant received from the State that the Department of Health has utilized to fund two full-time positions within the division as well as equipment; a portion of the sampling; mini-grants associated with the aquifer studies in Caroline, Dryden, and Newfield; the How Well is Your Water and After You Flush clinics; as well as watershed workshops around the County designed to bring about awareness of water supplies and sewage systems. The amount spent for community supply water systems minus the grant funds is approximately $175,000. Mr. Anderson spoke of the cost of service, noting if divided among the water systems it would be an annual cost of $688 per unit (each water system), if charged on an individual, per-person fee it would cost $1.95 per person. He followed the columns over for the charges made and indicated that based on the formula used, the smaller units paid $105, which was 5% of the cost, while the larger systems paid 398% of the cost in 2004.
Mr. Andersson then spoke of the discussions that took place in 2004 when the County experienced budgetary difficulties. He explained that the department was asked to assist in moderating tax increases by cutting costs and raising fees. He said the Board of Health decided to raise fees significantly, with increases encompassing other fees within the department as well. He said previously, the largest water supply fee was about $600, and the new water supply fee was about a ten-fold increase at the time. The suggestion from the State was that overall, revenue from users should equal 20% of the costs to run the program.
Mr. Andersson reviewed material included with the agenda that indicated all the community water systems with in County in 2005 (spreadsheet of all water systems indicating size, charges, time spent, number served, etc.). He spoke of how in order to determine if the fee is fair it needs to be viewed from in a different perspectives. He understands that from the perspective of the larger water systems they are paying four times what was spent on the system if it is divided by the cost of the whole program by the number of systems. Another way to look at it is what the costs would be for time spent, however it was not felt that would be the most fair way to charge, due to the nature of how systems operate. He then reviewed a column that indicated what the fee could be if each water system paid the full twenty percent increase requested by the County, and what was actually paid. He indicated there are three systems that pay more than the County actually spent at their location, Bolton Point, Cornell University, and one mobile home park. Mr. Andersson spoke of the formula if the charge per unit were associated with actual usage, which would be $.329 cents per thousand gallons for a resident of the mobile home parks, and Bolton Point’s clients would be required to pay $.07 cents per thousand gallons; the larger system costs would be significantly reduced due to the amount of water used. Since the County cost per thousand gallons comes to $.0539, anyone who paid over this figure would be paying more than their fair share on a thousand gallon basis.
Mr. Andersson said although these are many options it is important to bear in mind that it is difficult to develop a fee that would be viewed as fair by all, since the systems run from very small to very large. In addition, the majority of water systems are not developed to make money; they are to serve apartments or municipal water systems.
Mr. Newman inquired what the differences were in the formulas utilized prior to 2004 budget period when the fees significantly changed. Mr. Andersson said many years ago there was a set fee for units such as mobile home parks, hotels, etc. Due to a request for a more equitable fee structure, a sliding fee schedule was devised from a base figure that all paid, with an additional amount charged based on the number of units, and due to grants from the State, it was determined to cap the fee between $500 - $600. In 2003 the County was recovering approximately 10 – 11 percent of the costs associated with the program. In 2004, when budgetary constraints were critical, he was directed to remove the cap and to recover twenty percent of expenses through the fees, and to charge smaller systems a lesser fee. As a result of the directive, a fee schedule was calculated using a $100 base fee with the additional fee due based upon the number of people served by the system. This new fee was approved October, 2004.
Ms. Robertson asked for clarification of how the $600 cap was set. Mr. Andersson stated it was determined by looking at the across-the-board fee structure.
Mr. Newman said that there are three commissioners and the general manager who have reviewed the fees. He wanted to state Bolton Point has no objection to paying their fair fee; but the question is, What is fair? His perspective is different. He said from the time Bolton Point opened in 1976, the annual fee was between $300 - $500 until 2003 when it had risen to $600. He said that virtually overnight, in 2004, it went up by 1,000 percent, which he compared to $2.50/gallon gasoline going up to $25.00/gallon overnight. When this occurred they began to ask questions and discovered it was supposed to be related to the amount of effort to oversee the operation. He said when looking around at other systems it seemed there were other smaller systems that appeared to be taking a lot of the department’s time and record keeping compared to their operation. He noted that some of the things done by the Health Department for smaller systems due to their inability to do so, are able to be done by the staff at Bolton Point. He doesn’t believe that paying twenty percent of the amount they collected through fees as a single purveyor is equitable. He indicated it is sort of their bottom-line – that it is too much to ask for a single system to pay.
Ms. Valentino echoed the statements of Mr. Newman and said Mr. Tunison has information of all type of work that is done by Bolton Point rather than the Health Department.
Mr. Tunison said one main service that the Health Department provides for the smaller community water systems that isn’t done for Bolton Point is water sampling and analysis of the samples; Bolton Point maintains their own laboratory with staff who undertake the analysis on-site; testing that cannot be done on-site is sent to outside laboratories at their expense. He said that reports from the past indicated that some of the work completed by the Health Department for water systems in a given year included 850 bacteriological samples and 300 inorganic chemical samples, none of which were for the three large water systems. He then said that in 2002 the cost for these analyses was $13,000, none of which were for Bolton Point. Mr. Newman said he feels like Bolton Point is paying for their own sampling and analysis when this work is done by the Health Department for the other systems, which seems like paying twice for this work.
Mr. Proto asked about the information Mr. Tunison was referring to and was informed it was provided to Mr. Tunison at his request and was taken from the reports available and the water grant work plan. Mr. Anderson will provide that to committee members.
Ms. Robertson spoke of her having Chaired the Health and Human Services Committee in the past, including the year that the increases in fees occurred. She thanked Mr. Andersson for the explanation of the spreadsheets that assisted in an understanding of what the figures represent. Ms. Robertson said there are many ways to determine fees such as per gallon, per tap, etc.; the best way is to find a balance. She indicated the topic came up at the Board of Health, where it was determined not to have a per head or per tap charge; it was felt that there should be a base fee as all systems require some work, and a proportional method would try to spread out the costs to some degree in larger users. She indicated there were many conversations on the topic, but she could not recall what other counties do. Ms. Robertson said while she understands there was shock and awe at the increase, Bolton Point had said that the fee had not changed in a twenty-year period, and thus they may have been underpaying. She believes this is a Board of Health decision and asked if it is possible to see what other counties do and any other formulas that could distribute the costs fairly.
Mr. Andersson spoke of health directors producing a summary of fees each year, however, it does not provide information on how it is calculated. He said some charge $1,000 per water system, and he recalled the largest being Monroe County which charges a fee of $30,000.
Ms. Robertson noted that the City of Ithaca and Cornell University also experienced the increase in fee and they had both paid them. Mr. Andersson noted the City’s fee did not exceed the actual time spent by the environmental health expenses.
Mr. Tunison said they believe it is fair to charge the cost of the services actually provided. He said the Commission has already approached the Board of Health about this subject and was informed that it is a set fee. Mr. Andersson said while he cannot speak for the Board he believed part of the decision is that it would not be fair to charge each system for actual time spent, that this would also be unfair. He said the County is required to go where needed, not to just make up reasons to go to locations produce a fee. He also stated the work is for drinking water for people; there are other costs associated other than direct staff time, including training, driving to and from locations of water systems, record keeping, filing, etc.
Ms. Russell said based on her calculations from the chart it appears that 58.87 percent of the revenue increase was realized by charging it to large purveyors. She asked if the Health Department spends 60 percent of their time in this program on the large purveyors. Mr. Andersson said the fee is not relative to the time spent on each system, it is relative to the population served versus time spent. Ms. Russell said that is why they do not believe the fee is fair. Mr. Proto said he believed that particular viewpoint was shown within the material received from Bolton Point.
Ms. Valentino said she believed that in some way the point is being missed. She said it is not a matter of how much other counties water systems pay but what is the formula, what is fair to pay. Ms. Valentino said when it was said that they had been underpaying it was the same thing, what is fair for Bolton Point that does so many services of its own and is less of a burden in some ways on the Health Department should be charged more simply because they are serving more people and are serving them efficiently. She doesn’t believe it is fair; and while not saying it should be even across the board but they don’t feel the need to be carrying the largest burden for the whole county.
Mr. Whicher explained the process behind fee setting. The Board of Health sets the fees and forwards then to the Tompkins County Legislature who passes on the fees [in the blanket fee-setting resolution]. These fees are used until redirection or reconsideration by the Board of Health. He said the fees would not be determined at this point and he feels it should go back to the Board of Health to address the matter and keep them in the loop. Mr. Whicher then said this may be more a political issue than should be vested in the Board of Health, that it would be better to look at alternatives. He thinks the policy decision is appropriate at the Committee level rather than the Board of Health.
Mr. Wood said that are several things; one is there is a fee for past due which the Health Department is seeking assistance from the County Attorney’s office to collect the fee; the other is the question of future fees that would come before the Legislature during the budget process in October, when the fee schedule for the following year comes before them. At that time, the Legislature can either accept it or not. He said if there is a belief by the Committee that the fee structure is not fair, then the Board of Health needs to be informed that the Legislature would not likely approve the fee unless there is a different method.
Mr. Andersson said if the Board of Health is provided direction on any particular fee it would require a review of all the fees as they are calculated in a similar manner and would require a global change; this could have potential difficulties in other areas within the Department.
Mr. Whicher said if the Committee were to request information on an alternative fee it would be necessary to see the impact in other areas. He said while it may take time to complete a review, but this puts the issue on the table, though all may not agree with a decision, it would be discussed.
Mr. Hattery said if a different way to calculate the fee is suggested it will require coming up with a different balance in the criteria to base it on. He presently understands it is based at the user level rather than the system level. Mr. Andersson clarified that is part of the way the fee is generated. Mr. Hattery said the present fee is based on the number of people served rather than the number of hours at any one system; if a decision is made to move away from this, alternatives would need to be recommended that may require looking into. Mr. Andersson said that if the twenty percent of cost figure requested by the Legislature remains in place, a reduction of fee to the larger systems would require an increase to the smaller systems. Mr. Hattery said that presently there are clear criteria used; the County cannot just move away from this to minimize the cost for a particular system.
Ms. Russell asked if it was possible to supply more detailed information on the hours spent at public water supplies. Mr. Andersson said that the hours are not necessarily time spent on site; it includes all other aspects related to the facility. He said that if the staff receives training related to water supplies it is not designated to any particular water system but the general administrative account. Mr. Andersson explained how the time is logged within his department to enable a general accounting of time spent on various programs and facilities.
Mr. Shinagawa referred to Mr. Hattery’s statement on criteria; he believes that Bolton Point feels that due to the on site work completed by Bolton Point, the County spends a great deal less time at the facility which serves more people and Bolton Point shouldn’t be charged as much. He said that the other way to look at it is population served as a criterion as mentioned by Mr. Hattery. He believes that the population of the water system should be the criterion. Perhaps each one of the water facilities should be reviewed with this in mind. It was noted by Mr. Andersson that the per person fee is $1.95; however, billing of this small an amount to individuals would ultimately increase costs due to the billing process and collections.
Ms. Robertson indicated the key is what is fair, which means a criteria needs to be determined, what is a standard formula, and what other counties do could provide other options. She also believes that the short period between such a large increase and the billing date needs to be taken into consideration as well.
Mr. Proto suggested the Department provide the Committee with several options. In addition, he asked the Committee to review all material to determine if there are other suggestions of ways to calculate the fees. He also asked that information on other counties’ fees be obtained to provide a comparison. He said any change has to be budget neutral and the County needs to be sure that any decision made does not negatively impact the Health Department. Mr. Proto understands, Cornell University and the City of Ithaca had paid fees through 2005; if an adjustment or modification is made for Bolton Point, there would also be an adjustment for these other entities as well. He suggested that the entire fee structure for the Health Department be reviewed to understand the possible requests to review fees in other areas. He would also like to speak to the County Attorney and County Administrator to determine the legality of the situation. He feels the collection efforts for the past fees should be held in abeyance during this review. In sixty days he would like the matter to come back to the Committee to review possible alternatives. Mr. Hattery said that unless there is an alternative to the present calculation to suggest that is more reasonable it doesn’t make sense to change it.
Mr. Whicher said any committee member should provide Mr. Andersson with suggestions to enable him to review the matter.
Mr. Proto will request an update at the next meeting.
Social Services
Ms. Carey reported she will be requesting a discussion to review the work participation rate and eligibility sanctions through the Federal audit and how they could possibly have an impact on the budget. At this time it is uncertain how the Federal audit will affect the county and it is hoped that by April Mr. Herden will have a better understanding of how this will change funding.
Mr. Proto asked if any word has been received on JARC funding for buses. Ms. Carey said at this time she has not seen any decrease in funding in this area. She reported that Day Care funding may be affected but believes that as a result of the Flexible Family Funding pooling of monies it will not happen.
Ms. Carey will bring information on the disbursement of TANF funds to the next meeting.
Office for the Aging
Budget Adjustment
It was MOVED by Ms. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Hattery, and unanimously approved by voice vote of members present, to approve the following budget adjustment. BUDGET ADJUSTMENT APPROVED.
Office for the Aging
Revenue Acct
Title
Amt Approp Acct Title(s)
6790.43803 State Revenue $
66 6790.54472 Telephone
6790.43803 State Revenue $ 286
6790.54303 Supplies
6790.43803 State Revenue $1,667 6790.54330
Printing
6790.43803 State Revenue $ 332
6790.54452 Postage
6790.43803 State Revenue $1,101 6790.52206
Computer Equipment
6790.43803 State Revenue $ 200
6790.54400 Program Expense
6790.43803 State Revenue $ 485
6790.54412 Travel and Training
6790.43803 State Revenue $1,104 6790.54402
Advertising
Explanation: Reappropriated money to be used in 2006 Long Term
Care Insurance Program.
RESOLUTION NO. - IN APPRECIATION OF RETIRING OFFICE FOR THE AGING DEPARTMENT HEAD, IRENE STEIN
It was MOVED by Mr. Shinagawa, and unanimously seconded, to recommend the following resolution to the full Legislature for approval. RESOLUTION PASSED.
WHEREAS, since April of 1985, Irene Stein has devoted twenty-one years
of service to the senior citizens of Tompkins County; first as a Community
Service Elderly Grants Coordinator, followed by the position of Aging Services
Planner, and taking the role of Director of the Office for the Aging in
May of 1991, and
WHEREAS, Irene, in her capacity as Department Head and defacto Chair
of the Health and Human Services Cabinet has demonstrated an extremely
admirable degree of leadership which was greatly appreciated by her colleagues,
and
WHEREAS, through her leadership qualities, Irene has demonstrated enthusiastic
dedication towards public service, and in particular the needs of the aging
population within the County, and
WHEREAS, Irene, in her capacity as Director of the Office for the Aging,
has placed an emphasis on professionalism and recognizing future needs
of senior citizens of the County, and
WHEREAS, as a result of the Millennium Report (1999), which indicated
there will be a significant increase in the number of senior citizen residents
within the County, Irene recognized the importance of long-range planning
for not only her Department, but all facets of Tompkins County government,
and
WHEREAS, Irene assisted in creating and fostering strong support for
a wide range of programs, including the Foodnet; Personal Emergency Response
System; expanding the Long Term Care Unit; Mini-Home Repair Program; incorporating
the Housing Options for Seniors Today (HOST) in cooperation with Cornell
Cooperative Extension, providing housing, counseling, home-sharing and
reverse mortgage counseling to seniors; as well as numerous other programs
that direct senior citizens to necessary services enabling them to remain
in their residences whenever possible, and to live with dignity, now therefore
be it
RESOLVED, on recommendation of the Health and Human Services Committee,
That the Tompkins County Legislature recognizes, on the occasion of her
retirement, the many significant contributions Irene has made to preserve
and improve the quality of life for the citizens of our County,
RESOLVED, further, That the Tompkins County Legislature extends its
sincere appreciation and best wishes to Irene on this well-deserved occasion.
SEQR ACTION: TYPE II-20
Human Services Coalition
FEMA Grants
Ms. Schlather distributed and reviewed material relating to the FEMA Grants awarded to various food banks. This material included the membership of the Local Emergency Food and Shelter Board that determined the distribution of the grants and historical information of how the funds have been distributed over the years. She noted that the amount received is directly related to the level of unemployment for the County and therefore is small and has not increased over the years.
Chair’s Report
Minutes
Due to time constraints, Mr. Proto requested the minutes be deferred until the April meeting of the Committee.
Board of Health Appointment
Mr. Proto said that at the February 7th Legislature meeting the appointment was pulled at the request of Mr. Shinagawa and asked that he lead the discussion.
Mr. Shinagawa asked that Mr. Proto provide him with some of the history of his appointment to the consumer seat on the Board of Health, he would like to know how long he has held it and why for a long period and potentially now the Board would have two Legislators on it.
Mr. Proto explained he was originally appointed following Board of Representative member Ken Tillipaugh’s decision not to seek election again. He then reviewed information provided (State regulations, Board of Health Bylaws, and the County Charter), noting the designated membership on the Board. He explained the information for the County Charter and Board of Health Bylaws was virtually duplicated from the State regulations which include the ability for a City without its own Board of Health can appoint a designee for them, and the designee does not necessarily need to reside within the City limits.
Mr. Proto said as stated, he was appointed to the Board of Health to fill Mr. Tillipaugh’s vacancy when he left the Board of Representatives. As the seat is co-terminus with a legislative members’ term, it became open. Mr. Proto was a member of the Health Committee at that time. During this period he suggested that, at the very least, the Representative (Legislator) appointed to the seat should be on the Health and Human Services Committee, or perhaps the Chair of that Committee. Mr. Proto said that although there were discussions, the County Board of Representatives (Legislature) never chose to designate the seat in that manner, therefore, it remained designated as a seat for a Board of Representative (Legislature) member. Appointing the Committee Chair could result in an annual Board of Health change as the standing committee chair may change from time to time, and prior to the Board of Health term ending.
Mr. Proto said that at approximately the time his term for this seat designation expired Ms. Schuler became Chair of the Health and Human Services Committee. As he recalled, at the same time, Mr. Minteer, a contractor and long-serving member of the Board and former Vice Chair, was leaving the Board of Health. The Board experienced difficulty finding an individual to fill Mr. Minteer’s vacant seat. Mr. Proto said he was the Vice Chair of the Board, a position he still holds, and concern had been expressed about possibly losing approximately fifteen years of experience on the Board of Health. Dr. Rice was the only remaining charter member, and other members such as Dr. Racker were going off, which would leave a big hole of continuity on that Board. Because of these reasons, as well as his being a consumer by virtue of his background with apartment buildings, finances, and construction, he was asked to fill the “consumer” “At Large” seat. Mr. Proto said there was nothing serendipitous about the appointment. He also spoke of other times members had served on the Board of Health, including Ms. Howell and Ms. Livesay.
Mr. Proto said after Ms. Schuler had been appointed he believed there had been some difficulty in her attending meetings after a period of time and Mr. Winch then was appointed to the seat.
Ms. Robertson said she believed it had been thought informally, that the Chair of the Health and Human Services Committee should be on the Board, although she cannot find a policy regarding this. She said Mr. Winch was on the Board, and when Ms. Schuler was appointed Chair of the Health Committee it was assumed she would be the Board of Health Representative.
The Committee continued to discuss the Legislative appointment during this period. It was discussed that Mr. Winch’s six-year term was interrupted by Ms. Schuler and Ms. Robertson when they each had been Chair of the Health and Human Services Committee. Mr. Proto pointed out that there had been concern among members of the Legislature that Mr. Winch was incorrectly replaced on the Board during this period, and so he was reappointed to the Board of Health as the legislative representative until he left the Legislature at the end of 2005.
Mr. Shinagawa said since there are many new members on the Legislature, and with the Legislative seat on the Board of Health open, he believed it provided an opportunity to possibly appoint the Legislative seat to Mr. Proto, as Chair, and provide the opportunity for an individual outside of the Legislature to fill the consumer seat. He would like to explore this idea and is not certain how to formally make a motion it be done.
Mr. Wood, County Attorney, explained that Mr. Proto was appointed to the seat he currently holds, a situation that initially occurred approximately eleven years ago. At the time of Mr. Proto’s initial appointment he had been asked for an opinion as to whether this was allowed, and he determined it was. Mr. Wood said during that time it was difficult to obtain a quorum at the Board of Health meetings and Mr. Proto had shown his dedication to attend Board of Health meetings. He also said that during the period Mr. Proto was appointed, many of the members were elderly and due to their health, had difficulty attending as well. Subsequent to this period, the confusion of the Legislative seat on the Board of Health and its relation to the Health and Human Services Committee came about, but Mr. Wood said it is not relative to what Mr. Shinagawa was seeking. He explained that Mr. Proto has an entitlement to the seat he was appointed to on the Board of Health; the appointment was approved by the Legislature and he has not done anything wrong to remove him from it. He said Mr. Proto could choose to resign and be appointed or not to the Legislative seat on the Board of Health, and if he did it would open the consumer seat. Mr. Wood said whether it is possible to fill the consumer seat is not known, it has always been difficult to fill those positions.
Mr. Proto said at times the difficulty appears to be when the Board of Health meetings occur.
Ms. Robertson noted that a review of the Charter and Bylaws do not designate a “consumer seat”. Mr. Proto explained that the actual seat title is “At Large,” and that it has been called a consumer seat by the Board of Health as that is the type of individual sought to fill it.
Ms. Robertson said that she did not think the Board of Health had any recent openings to determine if there were qualified individuals. She knows of some individuals who might be interested. Ms. Robertson spoke of the County having placed notices in the newspaper when vacancies on other boards occur and expressed her desire for a canvass to determine interest in volunteering on the Board of Health.
Mr. Hattery inquired if his fellow Committee members had an interest to bring someone else out of the Health and Human Services Committee to the Legislative seat on the Board of Health. He said following his designation to the seat his recommendation had been stopped at the Legislative level; if there was an interest in bringing someone else forward it could be done.
Ms. Robertson said she was aware that in addition to Mr. Hattery, she had expressed an interest in the appointment, and that subsequent to the previous meeting she had learned that Mr. Stevenson had expressed an interest as well. She said her own preference would be to have the Chair of the Health and Human Services Committee appointed to the Legislative seat on the Board of Health and have a member of the public fill the other seat.
Mr. Shinagawa agreed with this point and moved that there be a search for a member of the public, outside of the legislature, to hold the consumer/at large seat. If there was no interest from qualified individuals that would allow the status quo to remain the same. Mr. Proto confirmed that Mr. Shinagawa was making a motion, and he asked if there was any second. Mr. Hattery indicated that he did not want to second the motion since it was asking Mr. Proto to step down to allow this. Mr. Shinagawa apologized for the oversight of not understanding the procedure that would be involved.
Mr. Proto indicated he was not interested in stepping down from the consumer/at large seat, he stated he was not appointed to the seat because he was a Legislator. He then expressed concern that the situation had taken on a political overtone and that it could possibly create a ripple effect. Mr. Proto said there are many County staff that serve on advisory boards in the capacity of both County and non-County representatives; some on the Library Board of Trustees and the Water Resources Council. On other advisory boards, there are legislators at other municipal levels who also serve in a private capacity, such as the Environmental Management Council and the Planning Advisory Board. He spoke of the Board of Health’s decision-making process, noting it is driven by the physicians on it. Mr. Proto said serving in the consumer seat has provided him the opportunity to discuss things at a personal level rather than just as a representative of constituents, which is sometimes difficult if they are the ones who have operational problems being discussed on the Board of Health. He shared his having developed a waiver process for individuals installing septic systems; noting that if it does not meet the Board of Health criteria a waiver is possible if it has designs signed by an architect or engineer indicating the alternate installation will operate. Mr. Proto said that perhaps in the future he would step down from the seat but at the present time he would not like to do so; and this would provide another Legislator the opportunity to develop a background on Board of Health operations.
Ms. Robertson indicated the request to step down was not to remove Mr. Proto, rather to consider changing the policy to have the Legislative seat be for the Committee Chair. She thought that perhaps the Government Operations Committee could look into setting a policy.
It was MOVED by Ms. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Hattery, to appoint Greg Stevenson to the Board of Health Legislative seat, with the term to expire December 31, 2007.
Mr. Proto said he believes the discussions taking place regarding appointment to non-Legislative seats will continue. Ms. Robertson indicated she did not understand why. Mr. Proto said it was not precipitated by his party members. Mr. Hattery said he would like to go beyond this, that he understood the matter is a partisan issue and recommended the appointment be moved. Ms. Robertson indicated she believed a non-partisan solution was offered.
Mr. Hattery indicated he believed the matter was a result of discussions held at caucus; that it was not felt there was any problem associated with a Legislator holding a non-Legislative seat on an advisory board. Ms. Robertson reiterated that having the Chair of the Committee hold the position of Legislative representative was appropriate. Mr. Shinagawa believes that when Mr. Proto’s term in the consumer seat is expired it should be considered that the Chair of the Committee, or another Legislator be appointed to the Legislator seat and as said before, have the consumer seat for a non-Legislator. Mr. Proto asked for agreement that the same criteria be applied to all advisory boards or other appointments the Legislature has influence over; and assumes it will be discussed at Government Operations. Mr. Shinagawa said that it should be discussed and considered. He did not know if it should be a law or rule but that consideration should be made to avoid elected officials taking non-legislative seats. Ms. Robertson said her goal is the same.
Ms. Fuller asked Mr. Wood if the suggested changes would require amendments to bylaws or the Charter. Mr. Wood indicated he did not believe so, that most bylaws do not indicate any language that would require amendments. In response to a question from Mr. Hattery regarding the Legislature’s approval to the Board of Health being the decision-making factor; Mr. Wood said not all appointments are made by the Legislature, some are recommendations from the Board of Health that require the Legislature’s approval.
A voice vote on the motion to appoint Greg Stevenson to the Board of Health resulted as follows: Ayes – 4; Noes – 0; Excused – 1 (Legislator Stevenson). APPOINTMENT APPROVED.
Adjournment: On motion, the Committee adjourned at 5:15
p.m.
Tompkins
County Legislature Homepage
Tompkins County Homepage
E-mail Comments about this
page